Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses

subordinate or submissive. That is how it is with men and women. Though they are completely equal in their nature (Genesis 1:26-28; Galatians 3:28), there is a hierarchical relationship that exists between them (1 Corinthians 11:3). The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge comments, “The subordination…of the Son to the Father is a voluntary though evidently permanent relationship which does not detract from or deny the equal deity of the Son, any more than the divine order of the submission of the wife to the husband (1 Corinthians 11:3) in the husband/wife relationship detracts from her essential equality and humanity, or implies her inferiority.” 67 Ask… • Do you think that an equality of being and a functional subordination are

incompatible with each other? • Do you think that an equality of being and functional subordination are illustrated in the relationship that exists between men and women (1 Corinthians 11:3)? (You might read this verse aloud.) • If the man’s headship over the woman does not mean that the woman has an inferior nature, then why does the Watchtower insist that the Father’s headship over Christ means that Christ has an inferior nature? Finally, you must explain to the Jehovah’s Witness what 1 Corinthians 15:28 is really teaching. In the eternal plan of salvation, the eternal Son’s role was to

become the Mediator (the “go-between”) between man and God the Father. But this role as Mediator is not eternal in its scope. In that future time when the task of man’s redemption is complete, the Mediator (Christ) voluntarily surrenders the kingdom to the One who sent Him into the world to accomplish redemption, God the Father. At that time, the Son’s mediatorial role will be completed. “When he delivers up the administration of the earthly kingdom to the Father, then the triune God will reign as God and no longer through the incarnate Son.” 68 Indeed, “throughout the endless ages of eternity, the triune God Jehovah will permeate the universe with His celestial love and glory. God will then be immediately known by all. What a glorious destiny awaits the redeemed of the Lord.” 69

In this chapter, we have examined a number of “proof texts” used by the Watchtower Society to argue for Christ’s alleged inferiority to the Father. We shall examine further Watchtower proof texts in chapter 6. * Scripture ultimately reveals that all three persons of the Trinity were involved in the divine work of creation: the Father (Genesis 1:1; 1 Corinthians 8:6), the Son (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; John 1:3), and the Holy Spirit (Job 26:13; 33:4; Psalm 104:30; Isaiah 40:12-13).

6

Is Christ Inferior to the Father?

Part 2 In the previous chapter we saw that the Watchtower Society consistently twists and distorts Scripture passages to make it appear that Christ is inferior to the Father. In the present chapter, we will continue our examination, beginning with a standard Watchtower “proof text”—John 14:28, where Jesus states: “The Father is greater than I am” (NWT).

REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES John 14:28—“The Father Is Greater than I” The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders John 14:28, “You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am” (emphasis added). The book Let God Be True tells us that Jehovah is greater than Jesus not only in regard to office but also in regard to His person. 1 Jehovah is intrinsically greater than Jesus. The Watchtower Society concludes from this that because Jehovah is the “greater” of the two, Jesus cannot be God Almighty. The

fact that Jesus is lesser than Jehovah proves that He cannot be God in the same sense that Jehovah is. Indeed, “on numerous 2 occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father…. Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.” 3 The Biblical Teaching. It is critical to recognize that in John 14:28, Jesus is not speaking about His nature or His essential being (Christ had earlier said, “I and the Father are one” in this regard [John 10:30]), but rather about His lowly position in the incarnation. The Athanasian Creed affirms 4 that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.” 5 In his commentary Exposition of the Gospel of John, Arthur W. Pink relates Christ’s statement that the Father was “greater” than Him to the great humiliation

Christ suffered in becoming a man: In becoming incarnate and tabernacling among men, [Christ] had greatly humiliated Himself, by choosing to descend into shame and suffering in their acutest forms…. In view of this, Christ was now contrasting His situation with that of the Father in the heavenly Sanctuary. The Father was seated upon the throne of highest majesty; the brightness of His glory was uneclipsed; He was surrounded by hosts of holy beings, who worshiped Him with uninterrupted praise. Far different was it with His incarnate Son— despised and rejected of men, surrounded by implacable enemies, soon to be nailed to a criminal’s cross. 6

Jesus’ return to the Father would utterly and completely rectify this situation— something that should have caused His disciples to rejoice, but did not. Christian apologist James White explains: Why does He refer to the Father as being greater than He is? He does so because He is reproaching the disciples for their selfishness. He had told them that He was going back to the presence of the Father. If they truly loved Him… this announcement would have caused them to rejoice. Why? Because the Father is greater than the Son. Now immediately we can see what the term “greater” means. If it meant “better” as in “a higher type of being,” these words would have no meaning. Why would the disciples rejoice because Jesus was going to see a being who is

greater than He? Why would that cause rejoicing? But the term does not refer to “better” but “greater” as in positionally greater. The Son was returning back to the place He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). He would no longer be walking the dusty roads of Galilee, surrounded by sin and sickness and misery. He would no longer be the subject of attack and ridicule by legions of scribes and Pharisees. Instead, He would be at the right hand of the Father in heaven itself. So we see that the term “greater” speaks to the position of the Father in heaven over against the position of the Son on earth…. He would soon be leaving this humbled position and returning to His position of glory. If the disciples had been thinking of the ramifications of Jesus’ words, they would have rejoiced that He was going

to such a place. Instead, they were focused upon themselves and their own needs, not upon the glorification of their Lord. 7 After explaining all this to the Jehovah’s Witness… Ask… Can you see that the word “greater” in John 14:28 must be interpreted in the context of Jesus saying He was returning to the Father in heaven? Seen in that light, doesn’t the word communicate the positional greatness of the Father while Jesus was yet in a state of humiliation and condescension on earth?

The Lower Position of Christ: Philippians 2:6-9. As you discuss how the Father is “greater” than Christ, you will want to focus some of your attention on Philippians 2:6-9. The apostle Paul, speaking of the incarnation, said that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (verses 6-7). Paul’s affirmation that Christ was “in the form of God” is extremely significant. Christ in His essential being is and always has been eternal God—just as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Theologian Charles Ryrie notes that the word form in the Greek connotes “that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing. Thus here it means that our Lord in His preincarnate state possessed essential deity.” Reformed theologian 8

Benjamin Warfield comments that the word form is a term “which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is.” Used of 9 God, the word refers to “the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call ‘God,’ specifically God, rather than some other being—an angel, say, or a man.” 10 It is significant that Christ’s existence “in the form of God” is communicated via a present tense participle in Philippians 2:6, carrying the idea of continued existence as God. Here the thought is that “Christ always 11 has been in the form of God with the implication that He still is.” Robert Reymond 12 notes that “when we take into account the force of the present participle, which conveys the idea of ‘continually [beforehand] subsisting’ (which in turn excludes any intimation that this mode of subsistence came to an end when He assumed the form

of servant), we have here as bold and unqualified an assertion of both the preexistence and the full and unabridged deity of Jesus Christ as one could ever hope to find in the pages of the New Testament.” 13 Thus, Philippians 2:6-9 indicates that Jesus Christ, in eternity past, continually and forever existed in the form of God, outwardly manifesting His divine attributes. This is the One who was born from the womb of Mary as a human being, all the while retaining His full deity. Having said all this about Christ’s essential deity, a key question remains: In what way did Christ make Himself nothing when He became incarnate (Philippians 2:7)? First, we can be certain that Jesus never gave up His deity when He became incarnate. Indeed, this is impossible, since God cannot cease to be God. Paul’s statement that Christ made Himself nothing

in the incarnation involves three basic issues: the veiling of His preincarnate glory, a voluntary nonuse (on some occasions) of some of His divine attributes, and the condescension involved in taking on the likeness of men. Regarding the veiling of Christ’s preincarnate glory, Scripture indicates that it was necessary for Him to give up the outer appearance of God in order to take upon Himself the form of man. Of course, Christ never actually surrendered His divine glory. Recall that on the Mount of Transfiguration (prior to His crucifixion), Jesus allowed His intrinsic glory to shine forth for a brief time, illuminating the whole mountainside (Matthew 17). Nevertheless, it was necessary for Jesus to veil His preincarnate glory in order to dwell among mortal human beings. Had Christ not veiled His preincarnate glory, humankind would not have been able

to behold Him. It would have been the same as when the apostle John, over fifty years after Christ’s resurrection, beheld Christ in His glory and said, “I fell at his feet as though dead” (Revelation 1:17); or, as when Isaiah beheld the glory of Christ in his vision in the temple and said, “Woe is me!” (Isaiah 6:5; compare with John 12:41). Second, when Christ made Himself “nothing” in the incarnation, He submitted to a voluntary nonuse of some of His divine attributes (on some occasions) in order to accomplish His objectives. Christ could never have actually surrendered any of His attributes, for then He would have ceased to be God. But He could (and did) voluntarily 14 cease using some of them (on occasion) during His time on earth (approximately 4 B.C. t o A.D. 29) in order to live among human beings and their limitations. Though Christ sometimes chose not to

use His divine attributes, at other times He did use them. For example, on different occasions during His three-year ministry, Jesus exercised the divine attributes of omniscience (that is, all-knowingness—John 2:24; 16:30), omnipresence (being everywhere-present—John 1:48), and omnipotence (being all-powerful, as evidenced by His many miracles—John 11). Hence, whatever limitations Christ may have suffered when He “made himself nothing” (Philippians 2:7), He did not subtract a single divine attribute or in any sense make Himself less than God. The question that arises at this point is, Why did Jesus choose on occasion not to use some of His divine attributes? It would seem that He did so to remain consistent with His purpose of living among human beings and their limitations. He does not seem to have used His divine attributes on His own behalf,

though certainly they were gloriously displayed in the many miracles He performed for others. To be more specific, the scriptural testimony indicates that Christ never used His omniscience to make His own life as a human being easier. “He suffered all the inconveniences of His day even though in His divine omniscience He had full knowledge of every human device ever conceived for human comfort.” 15 Nor did Christ use His omnipotence or omnipresence to make His life on earth easier. Though He could have, in His omnipotence, just willed himself instantly from Bethany to Jerusalem, He traveled by foot instead—like every other human—and experienced fatigue in the process. Of course, as God, Christ in His divine nature (with His attribute of omnipresence) was in both Bethany and Jerusalem at the same

time. But during His three-year ministry He voluntarily chose not to use this attribute on those occasions that would have made His life easier. “In a word, He restricted the benefits of His attributes as they pertained to His walk on earth and voluntarily chose not to use His powers to lift Himself above ordinary human limitations.” 16 Third, when Christ “made Himself nothing” in the incarnation He condescended Himself by taking on the “likeness” (literally “form” or “appearance”) of men, and taking on the form (“essence” or “nature”) of a bondservant. Christ was thus truly human. 17 This humanity was one that was subject to temptation, distress, weakness, pain, sorrow, and limitation. Yet at the same time, it must 18 be noted that the word “likeness” suggests similarity but difference. As theologian Robert Lightner explains, “Though His humanity was genuine, He was different

from all other humans in that He was sinless.” Nevertheless, Christ’s taking on the 19 likeness of men represented a great condescension on the part of the second Person of the Trinity. Theologians have been careful to point out that the incarnation involved a gaining of human attributes and not a giving up of divine attributes. The apostle Paul made this clear when he affirmed that in the incarnation Christ was “taking the form of a servant,” “being born in the likeness of men,” and “being found in human form” (Philippians 2:7-8). As J.I. Packer put it, “He was no less God then [in the incarnation] than before; but He had begun to be man. He was not now God minus some elements of His deity, but God plus all that He had made His own by taking manhood to Himself. He who made man was now learning what it felt like to be man.” In 20

other words, the incarnation involved not the subtraction of deity but the addition of humanity. So, in order to dwell among human beings, Christ made Himself nothing in the sense that He veiled His preincarnate glory, He submitted to a voluntary nonuse (without a surrendering) of some of His divine attributes, and He condescended Himself by taking on a human nature. All this adds great significance to Jesus’ statement that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Clearly, Jesus was making the statement from the vantage point of the incarnation. John 20:17—“My God and Your God” The Watchtower Teaching. John 20:17 in the New World Translation reads, “Jesus said to her: ‘Stop clinging to me. For I

have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God” ’” (emphasis added). Because Jesus referred to “my Father” and “my God,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, Jesus cannot possibly be Almighty God Himself. Indeed, as Reasoning from the Scriptures puts it, “to the resurrected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene.” By contrast, 21 “never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as ‘my God.’” 22 The Biblical Teaching. Why did Jesus call the Father “my God”? Does this imply that Jesus Himself is not God? By no means! Prior to the incarnation, Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, had only a divine nature. But in the incarnation Christ took on a human nature. It is thus in His humanity

that Christ acknowledged the Father as “my God.” Jesus in His divine nature could never refer to the Father as “my God,” for Jesus was fully equal to the Father in every way. Bible scholar Paul G. Weathers provides some keen insights on this issue: Since Christ came as man, and since one of the proper duties of man is to worship, pray to, and adore [God], it was perfectly proper for Jesus to call the Father “my God” and to address him in prayer. Positionally speaking as a man, as a Jew, and as our high priest (“made like his brothers in every way,” Heb. 2:17), Jesus could address the Father as “God.” However, Jesus did not relate to the Father in this way until he “emptied himself” and became man, as it says in Phil. 2:6-8. 23

There is another point we must make regarding Jesus’ statement that He was ascending “to my God and your God” (John 20:17). Why didn’t Jesus just say, “I am ascending to our Father and our God”? The reason is that Jesus was always careful to distinguish His relationship with the Father from the relationship humans had to the Father. As Robert Bowman notes, Jesus was careful to distinguish the two “because he was God’s Son by nature, whereas Christians are God’s ‘sons’ by adoption. Similarly, the Father was Jesus’ God because Jesus humbled Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:7), whereas the Father is our God because we are by nature creatures.” 24 Regarding this important distinction, Bible scholar Robert Reymond comments: It is significant that nowhere in the

teaching of Jesus did He ever speak of God to His disciples as “our Father” or “our God.” Throughout His ministry He consistently spoke of the Father as “the Father” or “My Father,” but never as “our Father.” (The “Our Father” of the so-called “Lord’s Prayer” is not an exception to this inasmuch as there Jesus is instructing His disciples on how they should corporately address God in prayer.) Here [in John 20:17], in keeping with His established pattern of speech, He avoided the obviously shorter form of expression (“our”) and chose to remain with the longer form (“My” and “your”). I suggest that His concern here was to maintain the distinction between the sense in which He is God’s Son by nature and by right and the sense in

which His disciples are God’s sons by grace and by adoption. 25 Ask… • Why do you think Jesus was always so careful to distinguish His relationship with the Father from the relationship humans have to the Father? • Why did Jesus always say, “My Father” or, “Your Father” but never, “Our Father”? Regardless of what response you receive from a Witness, you can use these questions to drive home the point that Christ was God’s Son by nature, whereas Christians are God’s

sons by adoption. Because He is God’s Son by nature, Jesus is truly God. Because He is also a man by nature (in the incarnation), He can call the Father “my God.” Mark 13:32—No One Knows the Day or the Hour The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders Mark 13:32, “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.” Jehovah’s Witnesses say that because Christ was ignorant of the time of the end, He cannot be Almighty God because God knows all things. “Had Jesus been the equal Son part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father knows. But Jesus did not know, for he was not equal to God.” Only the Father is Jehovah and is 26 all-knowing.

The Biblical Teaching. Though a bit complex, you must make the point that the eternal Son of God—who, prior to the incarnation, was one in person and nature (wholly divine)—became, in the incarnation, two in nature (divine and human) while remaining one person. The Son, who had already been a person for all eternity past, joined Himself not with a human person but with a human nature at the incarnation. One of the most complex aspects of the relationship between Christ’s two natures is that, while the attributes of one nature are never attributed to the other, the attributes of both natures are properly attributed to His one person. Thus Christ at the same moment in time had what seem to be contradictory qualities. He was finite and yet infinite, weak and yet omnipotent, increasing in knowledge and yet omniscient, limited to being in one place at one time and yet omnipresent. In

the incarnation, the person of Christ is the partaker of the attributes of both natures, so that whatever may be affirmed of either nature—human or divine—may be affirmed of the one person. Though Christ sometimes operated in the sphere of His humanity and in other cases in the sphere of His deity, in all cases what He did and what He was could be attributed to His one person. Even though Christ in His human nature knew hunger (Luke 4:2), weariness (John 4:6), and the need for sleep (Luke 8:23), in His divine nature He was also omniscient (John 2:24), omnipresent (John 1:48), and omnipotent (John 11). All of that was experienced by the one person of Jesus Christ. The Gospel accounts clearly show that at different times, Christ operated under the major influence of one or the other of His two natures. Indeed, He operated in the

human sphere to the extent that it was necessary for Him to accomplish His earthly purpose as determined in the eternal plan of salvation. At the same time, He operated in the divine sphere to the extent that it was possible in the period of His humiliation (Philippians 2:6-9). Here is the key point: Both of Christ’s natures come into play in many events recorded in the Gospels. For example, Christ’s initial approach to the fig tree to pick and eat a fig to relieve His hunger reflected the natural ignorance of the human mind (Matthew 21:19a). (That is, in His humanity He did not know from a distance that there was no fruit on that tree.) But then He immediately revealed His divine omnipotence by causing the tree to wither (verse 19b). On another occasion, Jesus in His divine omniscience knew that His friend Lazarus had died, so He set off for Bethany (John

11:11). When Jesus arrived, He asked (in his humanness, without exercising omniscience) where Lazarus had been laid (verse 34). Robert Reymond notes that “as the God- man, [Jesus] is simultaneously omniscient as God (in company with the other persons of the Godhead) and ignorant of some things as man (in company with the other persons of the human race).” 27 All this helps to give a proper understanding of Jesus’ comment in Mark 13:32: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” In this passage, Jesus was speaking from the vantage point of His humanity. As a human being Jesus was not omniscient but was limited in understanding just as all human beings are. If Jesus had been speaking from the perspective of His divinity, He would not have said the same thing. 28

It is critical that you point out to the Jehovah’s Witness that Scripture is abundantly clear that in His divine nature, Jesus is omniscient—just as omniscient as the Father. The apostle John said that Jesus “needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man” (John 2:25). The disciples said, “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God” (John 16:30, emphasis added). After the resurrection, when Jesus asked Peter for the third time if Peter loved Him, the disciple responded, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” (John 21:17, emphasis added). Bible scholar Thomas Schultz has provided an excellent summary of the massive evidence for Christ’s omniscience: First, He knows the inward thoughts and

memories of man, an ability peculiar to God (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-16). He saw the evil in the hearts of the scribes (Matthew 9:4); He knew beforehand those who would reject Him (John 13:11) and those who would follow Him (John 10:14). He could read the hearts of every man and woman (Mark 2:8; John l:48; 2:24-25; 4:16-19; Acts 1:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 2:18-23). A mere human can no more than make an intelligent guess as to what is in the hearts and minds of others. Second, Christ has knowledge of other facts beyond the possible comprehension of any man. He knew just where the fish were in the water (Luke 5:4-6; John 21:6-11), and He knew just which fish contained the coin (Matthew 17:27). He knew future events

(John 11:11; 18:4), details that would be encountered (Matthew 21:2-4), and He knew that Lazarus had died (John 11:14). Third, He possessed an inner knowledge of the Godhead showing the closest possible communion with God as well as perfect knowledge. He knows the Father as the Father knows Him (Matthew 11:27; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15; 17:25). The fourth and consummating teaching of Scripture along this line is that Christ knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17), and that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). 29 Certainly a key affirmation of Christ’s omniscience is the fact that He hears and answers the prayers of His innumerable

people. “When Jesus claimed for Himself the prerogative to hear and to answer the prayers of His disciples,” Robert Reymond suggests, “He was claiming omniscience. One who can hear the innumerable prayers of His disciples—offered to Him night and day, day in and day out throughout the centuries—keep each request infallibly related to its petitioner, and answer each one in accordance with the divine mind and will would need Himself to be omniscient.” 30 After sharing some of the above verses regarding Christ’s omniscience with the Jehovah’s Witness (you might want to read them aloud): Ask… • Can anyone do the things Christ did in these verses without having the attribute of omniscience?

• Can anyone other than God have the attribute of omniscience? • Since Christ in the incarnation had both a human nature and a divine nature —and since Christ in His divine nature exercised His omniscience on numerous occasions in the Gospels—can you see how Jesus was speaking from His human nature when He said He did not know the day or the hour? Mark 10:17-18—“No One Is Good Except God Alone” The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders Mark 10:17-18, “And as he was going out on his way, a

certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?’ Jesus said to him: ‘Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God’” (emphasis added). The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that this verse proves Jesus is not God, for, as Jesus acknowledged, only God is truly good. Commenting on this verse, the booklet Should You Believe in the Trinity? tells us, “Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus.” 31 Aid to Bible Understanding likewise says that “Jesus Christ, though he had this quality of moral excellence, would not accept ‘Good’ as a title…. He thus recognized Jehovah as the ultimate standard of what is good.” 32 The Biblical Teaching. Jesus was not claiming in Mark 10:17-18 that He did not

have the “goodness” characteristic of God. Nor was He denying that He was God. Rather, Jesus was asking the young ruler to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus said, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me good? Are you saying I am God?” As scholar John 33 D. Grassmick put it, “Jesus’ response did not deny His own deity but was a veiled claim to it. The man, unwittingly calling Him ‘good,’ needed to perceive Jesus’ true identity.” 34 Regarding this, apologist Norman Geisler writes, “The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not.” 35

Thus, Jesus’ statement to the young ruler may be summarized this way: “If I am not deity, don’t call me good, for only God is good.” Or perhaps: “You have given me a 36 title which belongs only to God. Do you understand and mean it?” Clearly, Mark 37 10:17-18 does not support the Watchtower contention that Jesus is not God Almighty simply because He lacks the goodness of God. After explaining this to the Jehovah’s Witness… Ask… • Where in the text does Jesus explicitly say He is not good? (Merely asking the question, “Why do you call me good?” is not a confession that Christ is not good.) • Doesn’t the context clearly show

that Jesus was really saying, “You have given me a title which belongs only to God. Do you understand and mean it?” 1 Corinthians 8:6—“One God, the Father…One Lord, Jesus Christ” The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders 1 Corinthians 8:6, “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him” (emphasis added). The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that since there is “one God” (Jehovah) who is distinct from “one Lord” (Jesus), then Jesus cannot be God. This verse presents the

Father as being in a “class” distinct from Jesus Christ. According to Reasoning from 38 the Scriptures, this verse indicates that Jehovah is utterly unique, with no one else sharing His exalted position. Jehovah stands in clear contrast to all other alleged objects of worship. 39 The Biblical Teaching. Though the Father is called “one God” and Jesus Christ is called “one Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is illegitimate to conclude that Jesus is not God just as it is illegitimate to conclude that the Father is not Lord. After all, there are many places throughout Scripture where the Father is called Lord and the Son is called God. It is critical to force the Jehovah’s Witness to carry his logic to the end. Indeed, if the reference to the Father being the “one God” proves that Jesus is not God, then by that same logic we must conclude that the reference to Jesus Christ as the “one Lord”

means that the Father is not Lord. And no 40 Witness will be willing to concede that the Father is not Lord. Do not allow him or her to sidestep this issue. He or she cannot interpret the first part of this verse one way and the second part another way. The faulty logic of Jehovah’s Witnesses here is the assumption that the use of a title for one person in one context automatically rules out its application to another person in another context. Instead of making such a 41 faulty assumption, the proper policy would be to consult what all of Scripture has to say about the Father and Jesus Christ and then come to one’s conclusion. From Scripture we know that the Father is called God (1 Peter 1:2) and Lord (Matthew 11:25), and we know that Jesus Christ is called God (John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8) and Lord (Romans 10:9). When we let Scripture interpret 42 Scripture, it becomes clear that the

Watchtower interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is in gross error. Ask… • Does the fact that Jesus is called the “one Lord” in this verse mean that the Father (Jehovah) is not Lord? (He will say no. Share the above verses with him.) • Why not? (The answer should be interesting!) • Can you see that since Jesus as “one Lord” does not mean that the Father is not Lord, then—by the same logic—the Father as “one God” does not mean that Jesus is not God?

Psalm 110:1—Jehovah and “My Lord” The Watchtower Teaching. Psalm 110:1 in the New World Translation reads, “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet’” (emphasis added). The Jehovah’s Witnesses say that since Jehovah is speaking in this verse, and since the “Lord” is a distinct person from Jehovah, then Jesus must not be God Almighty. Reasoning from the Scriptures explains that in Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus claims that He Himself is the “Lord” referred to by David in this psalm. They therefore conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah, but is the one to whom Jehovah’s words were spoken. 43 The Biblical Teaching. This verse makes perfect sense within the scope of trinitarian theology. In the broader context of

Matthew 22:41-46, we find Christ “putting the Pharisees into a corner” by asking them a question relating to the person of the Messiah. He asked, “Whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42). They responded, “The Son of David.” Their answer was correct since the Old Testament thoroughly established the Davidic lineage of the Messiah (2 Samuel 7:16). But their answer was also incomplete. Scripture not only teaches that the Messiah would be the Son of David in terms of His humanity, it also teaches that He is God— and it is the latter fact that Christ wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge. Christ, of course, anticipated the Pharisees’ half-answer. That is why in the next verse He quoted a Davidic psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet” (Matthew 22:44; compare with Psalm

110:1). The words “my Lord” are a reference to David’s Messiah. This divine Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of “the Lord” (God the Father). Here we have the first person of the Trinity speaking to the second person of the Trinity. 44 In His discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus asked them that if the Messiah was the “son” or descendant of David, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord?” (Matthew 22:43). It seems odd that David would call his own son “my Lord.” Certainly the fact that the Messiah was David’s son testified to the humanity of the Messiah. But David’s reference to “my Lord” also points to the undiminished deity of the Messiah, since “Lord” (Hebrew: adonai) was a title for deity. The Messiah would be David’s son, 45 but He would also be David’s God. The Messiah would be both God and man. To drive this point home, Christ continued to

interrogate the Pharisees: “If then David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (verse 45). The Pharisees were trapped, and they knew it. J. Dwight Pentecost, in his excellent volume The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, gives this explanation: If the Pharisees answered that David called Him his Lord because He is God, then they could not object to Christ, David’s Son according to the flesh, claiming to be the Son of God. If they agreed that Messiah was to be truly human and truly God, they must cease their objections to Christ’s claim concerning His person. The Pharisees realized the dilemma that faced them and refused to answer. None could refute the wisdom with

which He spoke, and “from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions” (v. 46). 46 Obviously, far from showing that Christ is less than the Father, Psalm 110:1 actually points to the undiminished deity of Jesus Christ. After explaining all this to the Jehovah’s Witness: Ask… • Did you know that the same word used for “Lord” (adonai ) in Psalm 110:1 of Jesus Christ is also used of the Father numerous times in Scripture (Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 3:11)? • Is it not clear from the context of